LexLords NRI Legal Services Wolverhampton By NRI Legal Services LexLords
NRI legal services - https://lexlords.com/consumer-courts-protect-nri-builders-developers/. The amount was simultaneously credited to the managing agents' commission account. It is true that the, sum was not drawn by the firm but that can hardly affect the question of its liability to tax, once it is established that the income had accrued or- arisen to the firm 264 The mere fact that the company was withholding payment on account of a pending dispute cannot be held to mean that the amount did not accrue to the firm.
Two days later, Veerappa Pillai, proprietor of the Sri Sathi Viias Bus Service, who is the appellant before us, applied for temporary permits to ply two of his own vehicles over the same route, stating that the vehicles of the two agencies which held the permits were mostly out of action. 6901 of 2009, as already noticed, has been filed by an individual land-owner by which his challenge to the same acquisition was negatived by the High Court by its judgment and order dated 23rd December, 2005 in Writ Petition No.
Other sub-paras of para 10 provided that a request for voluntary retirement would not take effect unless accepted by the competent authority who would have absolute discretion to accept or reject that request. , NRI legal services (click here!) and there was a joint application by the transferor and trans- feree on 10th March, 1944, for transfer of the ownership and of the 'C' permits in the name of the purchasers. They raise matters of wider import which will require consideration in a suitable case. In the next place, the businesses there were not con-tinuing as here.
The next question that falls to be determined is whether the sum of Rs. There can be no doubt under the circum- stances that the aforesaid sum was income which had accrued to the firm. 2,26,850-5-0 was part of the profit and gains which had accrued to the firm during the accounting year 1941-1942. In the instant case, these options were withdrawn after the stipulated date. The buses were agreed to be purchased from him by Messrs. Appeal by special leave granted by the Supreme Court on the 21st May, 1951, from the Judgment and Decree dated the 13th December, 1949, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (Rao and Somasundaram JJ.
As soon as separate commercial commodities emerge or come into existence, they become separately taxable goods or entities for purposes of sales tax nAs we all know, sales tax law is intended to tax sales of different commercial commodities and not to tax the production or manufacture of particular substances out of which these commodities may have been made. The said Scheme prescribed a particular procedure for making an application for seeking voluntary retirement.
Swarnakar is to be applied, it was specifically held in that case that option of voluntary retirement can be withdrawn by the last date on which the application is to be submitted. A large number of employees submitted their applications, out of whom a small number of employees withdrew their offer. 28 dated July 01, 2005 never mentioned any clause for extension of the Scheme and once these employees opted under the said Scheme they were very well informed that the last date is August 01, 2005.
It was pointed out that the High Court did not accept this plea on the ground that since the last date was extended from August 01, 2005 to October 28, 2006 and the applications for withdrawal were not submitted from the said date, the withdrawal applications would be treated as having been submitted before the expiry date mentioned in the Scheme. Temporary permits for buses M. Under these circumstances, it is idle to contend that the aforesaid sum had NRI legal services not accrued.
The undisputed facts are that the amount in question was the commission earned by the firm as managing agents of the company. The permanent permits for the sold buses were suspended by order of the Secretary dated 28th March, 1944. These cases were not cases of a business owned and run by a single owner and so the fiction of treating the business as a separate entity from its owner actually trading with him, which we are asked to apply here, does not arise. 393 of 2005 on the grounds mentioned herein above 6900 of 2009 challenging the judgment and order of the High Court.
Modun Mohun(2) may (1) Vide Lalta Prashad v, Gazadhar, 55 All. Parthasarathi, 57 Mad. nIt is in these circumstances that the State of Uttarakhand has filed Civil Appeal No. It was a fact that out of the five buses sold 586 by Balasubramania Pillai, only two were then running; the other three were under repairs. The learned senior counsel for the Corporation argued with ardor that this was an erroneous approach on the part of the High Court inasmuch as the original VRS Scheme promulgated vide order No.
If the debt was not tainted with immorality, it was open to the creditor to realise the dues by attachment and sale of the sons' coparcenary interest in the joint property on the principles discussed above. We refrain from expressing any opinion about them, especially as they appear to reach different conclusions, because the facts are not the same and the questions which arose on the facts there were not argued here.
The 'C' permits for the five buses stood originally in the name of Balasubramania Pillai. In the books of the company main- tained by the firm the aforesaid sum was debited as an item of revenue expenditure and the profits were computed after deducting that sum. As has been laid down by the Judicial Committee in a series of cases, of which the case of Nanomi Babuasin v. The only question is whether the aforesaid sum ceased to be, income by reason of the fact that on the 30th March the sum was carried to the suspense account by a reso- lution of the directors as a result of the request made by the firm that the outstanding debt due from it may be written off.
529 of 1946 arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated the 20th February, 1946, of the Court of Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in O. It was also submitted that the amendment was carried out for specific purpose, namely, to give opportunity to those who had not yet opted under the Scheme and, therefore, such an extension in the date could not enure to the benefit of those who had already opted and for whom the last date was August 01, 2005.
